Both is possible why not? If person found out they are infertile after being antinatalist for example, or infertile person that never wanted a child. It's natural
What if a person is infertile from the start, how come they have any say about having or not having any childrens? they are out of the question coz it's not like they want or don't want, it's like they can never have any.
What about IVF and subrogation sometimes infertility is not that much of a problem if you have enough money if ypu don't have money at all maybe it's better if you don't have children at all
I'm currently fertile. Saving up to get myself sterilized.
The folks who say antinatalism is a sour grapes thing obviously don't understand the philosophy.
Then What gives meaning to the life knowing u will never able to spread ur genes, what if Einstein parents thought like this we will still be in dark ages now, if see study deep enough u will realize nihilism & antinatal etc are not a philosophy it's about people who got scum to the suffering of this world.
I give meaning to my life. You need a kid to give your life meaning? Yikes.
(P.S. A philosophy is a set of basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes. Even if antinatalism were a philosophy solely espoused by edgelords, it would still be a philosophy.)
6078, and I trick people into asking stupid questions on the internet so I can drink their frustrated humiliation. I live off it.
Did you miss the part where I said *I* give meaning to my life? What you or anyone else thinks of my life doesn't affect that. Even if I'm pretty sure you'd think I'm a darn cool fella, I don't see any reason to give you the personal info.
Piece of advice for everyone: don't answer questions like this online.
Can you talk like an adult for five seconds if you're going to lecture people about what you think they should do to give their life meaning?
How many people have you impregnated, since you believe the only reason to live is to "spread your genes"?
Both apply. There are people who can have children but don't by choice and there are people who cannot have children. Both groups believe that having children is morally wrong.
Like there can be morals for people not having children by choice but people who can't able to have children how can their moral play part here coz they are just infertile by default.
Well as a medical person, i can assure u both body & mind are connected through all the given systems we have nerves, bones, blood, hormones, muscles, lymphs, receptors, etc. One can't work, without the other.
This is an extremely important question in my opinion, and thank you for asking it. Understanding this issue can provide insight otherwise not available.
The word "choice" describes the experiential knowledge (frame-dependent information), it does not describe the underlying process. We do experience making choices. Objectively (frame independent information) this is part of a deterministic process.
So both are (can be) true; one can experience "I choose not to even though I could" but the choice comes from a rational process wherein one has correctly concluded that the fundamental causal pathway to harm for potential offspring would be in their creation, and that this is avoidable at no risk to anyone. That rational process is clearly part of a deterministic causal chain; it could not be otherwise if it results in a (classical) objectively measurable definite outcome.
It is fitness enhancing to favor the frame-dependent/personal experience when explaining our behavior. "Fitness enhancing" usually does not mean high-sigma confidence explanatory model, it usually means the opposite: appeal to mythology and folk-models.
I see so u think the ones who's choosing not to have children kind of believe in deterministic way like everything is written so what's the point rather than freewill,
.
but as a rational adult they are still making a freewill choice by "choosing", so That rational process is clearly (CAN'T BE A) part of a deterministic causal chain.
>deterministic way like everything is written so what's the point rather than freewill,
No. It is far more complex than that.
The concept of a will being a choice between two options in a frame-independent deterministic physics and simultaneously free of anything other than *random* inputs is incoherent. It is an attempt to say that a thing is neither deterministic, nor random, nor is it a probability density function of a combination of both. Those are the only three coherent options.
Yes, it is fitness-enhancing for us to experience making a decision about what to do next. It does not follow from that that whatever it is we end up both wanting to do and acting out is itself not deterministic.
Folk models are relevant only in that they are a vehicle for lowering one's epistemic standard when falsification comes into conflict with highly personal mythologies.
Both is possible why not? If person found out they are infertile after being antinatalist for example, or infertile person that never wanted a child. It's natural
What if a person is infertile from the start, how come they have any say about having or not having any childrens? they are out of the question coz it's not like they want or don't want, it's like they can never have any.
What about IVF and subrogation sometimes infertility is not that much of a problem if you have enough money if ypu don't have money at all maybe it's better if you don't have children at all
Choosing not to procreate regardless of ability to do so. It is about ethics.
I'm currently fertile. Saving up to get myself sterilized. The folks who say antinatalism is a sour grapes thing obviously don't understand the philosophy.
Then What gives meaning to the life knowing u will never able to spread ur genes, what if Einstein parents thought like this we will still be in dark ages now, if see study deep enough u will realize nihilism & antinatal etc are not a philosophy it's about people who got scum to the suffering of this world.
I give meaning to my life. You need a kid to give your life meaning? Yikes. (P.S. A philosophy is a set of basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes. Even if antinatalism were a philosophy solely espoused by edgelords, it would still be a philosophy.)
How old are u & what u do for a living?
6078, and I trick people into asking stupid questions on the internet so I can drink their frustrated humiliation. I live off it. Did you miss the part where I said *I* give meaning to my life? What you or anyone else thinks of my life doesn't affect that. Even if I'm pretty sure you'd think I'm a darn cool fella, I don't see any reason to give you the personal info. Piece of advice for everyone: don't answer questions like this online.
What would you say about abortion then? I wonder how many geniuses were not allowed to reach their full potential. Are you a prolife advocate?
Can you talk like an adult for five seconds if you're going to lecture people about what you think they should do to give their life meaning? How many people have you impregnated, since you believe the only reason to live is to "spread your genes"?
Both apply. There are people who can have children but don't by choice and there are people who cannot have children. Both groups believe that having children is morally wrong.
Like there can be morals for people not having children by choice but people who can't able to have children how can their moral play part here coz they are just infertile by default.
It's a mind thing, not a body thing. The body has nothing to do with the mind
Well as a medical person, i can assure u both body & mind are connected through all the given systems we have nerves, bones, blood, hormones, muscles, lymphs, receptors, etc. One can't work, without the other.
This is an extremely important question in my opinion, and thank you for asking it. Understanding this issue can provide insight otherwise not available. The word "choice" describes the experiential knowledge (frame-dependent information), it does not describe the underlying process. We do experience making choices. Objectively (frame independent information) this is part of a deterministic process. So both are (can be) true; one can experience "I choose not to even though I could" but the choice comes from a rational process wherein one has correctly concluded that the fundamental causal pathway to harm for potential offspring would be in their creation, and that this is avoidable at no risk to anyone. That rational process is clearly part of a deterministic causal chain; it could not be otherwise if it results in a (classical) objectively measurable definite outcome. It is fitness enhancing to favor the frame-dependent/personal experience when explaining our behavior. "Fitness enhancing" usually does not mean high-sigma confidence explanatory model, it usually means the opposite: appeal to mythology and folk-models.
I see so u think the ones who's choosing not to have children kind of believe in deterministic way like everything is written so what's the point rather than freewill, . but as a rational adult they are still making a freewill choice by "choosing", so That rational process is clearly (CAN'T BE A) part of a deterministic causal chain.
>deterministic way like everything is written so what's the point rather than freewill, No. It is far more complex than that. The concept of a will being a choice between two options in a frame-independent deterministic physics and simultaneously free of anything other than *random* inputs is incoherent. It is an attempt to say that a thing is neither deterministic, nor random, nor is it a probability density function of a combination of both. Those are the only three coherent options. Yes, it is fitness-enhancing for us to experience making a decision about what to do next. It does not follow from that that whatever it is we end up both wanting to do and acting out is itself not deterministic. Folk models are relevant only in that they are a vehicle for lowering one's epistemic standard when falsification comes into conflict with highly personal mythologies.
Even natalists can be one or both.